Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Combined With Resistance Training or Neuromuscular Electrostimulation on Muscle Cross-Sectional Area

Low-load resistance training (LL) and neuromuscular electrostimulation (NES), both combined with blood flow restriction (BFR), emerge as effective strategies to maintain or increase muscle mass. It is well established that LL-BFR promotes similar increases in muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and lower rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain compared with traditional resistance training protocols. On the other hand, only 2 studies with conflicting results have investigated the effects of NES-BFR on CSA, RPE, and pain. In addition, no study directly compared LL-BFR and NES-BFR.The aim of the study was to compare the effects of LL-BFR and NES-BFR on vastus lateralis CSA, RPE, and pain. Individual response for muscle hypertrophy was also compared between protocols.Intrasubject longitudinal study.University research laboratory.Fifteen healthy young males (age = 23 [5] y; weight = 77.6 [11.3] kg; height = 1.76 [0.08] m).Vastus lateralis CSA was measured through ultrasound at baseline (pre) and after 20 training sessions (post). The RPE and pain responses were obtained through modified 10-point scales, handled during all training sessions.Both protocols demonstrated significant increases in muscle CSA (P < .0001). However, the LL-BFR demonstrated significantly greater CSA changes compared with NES-BFR (LL-BFR = 11.2%, NES-BFR = 4.6%; P < .0001). Comparing individual increases in CSA, 12 subjects (85.7% of the sample) presented greater muscle hypertrophy for LL-BFR than for the NES-BFR protocol. In addition, LL-BFR produced significantly lower RPE and pain responses (P < .0001).The LL-BFR produced significantly greater increases in CSA with significant less RPE and pain than NES-BFR. In addition, LL-BFR resulted in greater individual muscle hypertrophy responses for most subjects compared with NES-BFR.